Category Archives: Government Fraud

Post navigation

June 1, 2017, a day that will live in infamy for the liars, thieves, and killers of the new international economic order. They will see it as infamy, because their plan to sink the economy of America into a final death rattle has been rejected by Trump.

Fake climate science has been the lynch pin, justifying orders to cut CO2 emissions—but make no mistake about it, cutting emissions means cutting energy production in almost all countries of the world. THAT’S THE GLOBALIST TARGET. ENERGY PRODUCTION.

Get that one straight. The Globalist “utopia” isn’t a trillion solar collectors or a trillion windmills—it’s lights going out all over the world.

It’s LOWER ENERGY PRODUCTION.

That’s the monster hiding in the closet. That’s the outcome arch-Globalists are determined to foist on the planet, because that’s the society they want to control—poverty-stricken, abject, shuffling along a bleak path to nowhere.

Trump just stuck a knife in that scheme.

Yes, I fully understand the devil is in the details, but it is up to people everywhere, who have active brain cells and can see through the climate hoax, to take this opportunity to reject, publicly, the whole climate agenda.

CO2 is not the enemy.

Do the research yourself and see if there is any way these so-called scientists can assess, now or in the past, THE TEMPERATURE OF THE WHOLE PLANET.

The science is settled? There is no room for argument?

Freeman Dyson, physicist and mathematician, professor emeritus at Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study, Fellow of the Royal Society, winner of the Lorentz Medal, the Max Planck Medal, the Fermi Award: “What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies [in climate change models] between what’s observed and what’s predicted have become much stronger. It’s clear now the [climate change] models are wrong, but it wasn’t so clear 10 years ago… I’m 100 per cent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this [climate change] issue, and the Republicans took the right side…” (The Register, October 11, 2015)

Green Guru James Lovelock, who once predicted imminent destruction of the planet via global warming: “The computer models just weren’t reliable. In fact, I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy, this climate change.” (The Guardian, September 30, 2016)

And these are but a tiny fraction of the statements made by dissident scientists who reject manmade global warming.

But regardless, never lose sight of agenda based on this “settled science.”

VASTLY LOWER ENERGY PRODUCTION FOR PLANET EARTH.

And at the same time, truly viable forms of energy production (e.g., water turbines, hydrogen), that could be brought online with but a fraction of previously chiseled government subsidies for oil and nuclear, are sitting on the shelf gathering dust—BECAUSE THE MODEL OF SCARCITY FOR THE PLANET IS WHAT THE GLOBALIST EMPIRE DESIRES.

Until such time as that model is destroyed, Earth needs energy, all the energy it can produce.

The climate criminals, working for Globalism Central, staged their Paris “Treaty” to try to torpedo that production. Obama signed on in Paris, knowing full well he was committing a criminally unconstitutional act by disregarding the vote of the US senate, a vote that was needed to confer legitimacy to the agreement.

There is nothing binding about the Paris “Treaty.” Nothing.

And today, Trump squashed it.

Might he re-enter negotiations and give away some of what he’s just taken back for America? Anything’s possible. But for now, the Paris Accord is a dead duck here in the US.

Trump is going to catch a new version of Hell for what he’s just done. But if enough Americans, and people around the world, realize the true implication of this historic day, and proclaim it, they’ll win. We’ll win. Each one of us.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Peace through mutual blackmail: is that what’s happening in Washington?

by Jon Rappoport

May 25, 2017

In the last few days, the campaign to impeach Donald Trump has quieted down. We’ll see what happens; but is this breathing space and pause the result of a stalemate? Do both sides have “control files” on each other? Is the underlying proposition, “I won’t spill your secrets if you won’t spill mine”?

I now refer to an article about Trump and his enemies that has been circulating online. I don’t know who the author is. His views and opinions make an interesting circumstantial case. Here is an excerpt:

“James Comey is a poisonous snake of the highest order… a deep-water Swamp Denizen who has been highly paid to deliberately provide cover for high-level corruption by the Clintons and Obama. He is has been central to trying to destroy the Trump campaign and then the Trump administration from the start. He is as dirty as they come in DC. He had highest-level cover (the FBI no less) and was deep into an effort to eliminate Trump. Trump had to move hard, fast, and at exactly the right time to cut the head off the snake without getting bitten by the snake or being finished by the other swamp denizens.”

“Begin by noticing how the President fired Comey when Comey was 3,000 miles away from his office, that Comey had no inkling he was being cut, that all his files, computers, and everything in his office were seized by his boss Sessions and the justice department. This was not a violation of protocol, it was tactical. Notice how Prez Trump compartmentalized the strike and did not inform any of his White House ‘staff’ to prevent leaks. Notice how he emasculated Comey and the swamp denizens by letting them know in a tweet that the Attorney General got information (surveillance ‘tapes’ from the seizure of Comey’s office) to let Comey and his handlers know that Trump’s DOJ has the goods on them. This was a brilliant, strategic and totally imperative move at exactly the right time against horrible, evil and corrupt powers infesting our government.”

“The swamp is on notice that the President is on to them, they are sweating bullets because their criminal games of corruption are being pursued and they know it. They are screaming and ranting because they are desperate denizens of the swamp who are beginning to realize they are roadkill.”

The article goes on to describe the purported depths of Comey’s corrupt connections to the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation, as their agent.

In the author’s view, Trump and Attorney General Sessions have the goods on the Clintons now, and also have damning evidence of crimes committed by other key players in the DC swamp.

There is another possibility.

Given Donald Trump’s history as a real estate hustler from way back, his acrobatic financial dealings with money men, his projects’ bankruptcies, his celebrity status, his impulsive proclivities, his extraordinary self-promotion, it’s obvious his enemies have compiled a “control file” on him. They have the sort of information they believe they can use as serious blackmail.

In that case, we could now be looking at a stalemate of sorts. Both sides have the goods on each other.

This is no guarantee of a permanent peace based on Mutually Assured Destruction; but MAD could form the basis of a truce. And the truce could extend into the future.

“I have your secrets, you have mine. Now let’s do business.”

Of course, we have to remember that Washington is a tinderbox at all times. It’s a dry forest waiting for a match to be struck and a spark to fly.

We will see whether Trump drains the swamp, the swamp drains him, or nobody drains anybody.

The present war in Washington isn’t for the faint of heart, or the nice people who want everybody to get along, or the suburbanites who want all participants to be awarded trophies. Washington is Crime Central and the knives are out in full view. It’s a fashion parade in the devil’s cave. To paraphrase Harry Truman, if you can’t stand the overflowing toilets, get out of the bathroom.

Washington is a land of insanity, psychosis, spying, panic, and excrement-throwing.

When you try to connect the dots, you see they have blood and lies and hatred and coup-plotting and impeachment and even the ghost of David Rockefeller embedded in them, as opening and closing little clams and sharks and crawling worms and blobs of unidentifiable species try to take Donald Trump down. And he, of course, wants to take them down…

It would be no surprise if the people who hold each other’s secrets are staring at a “nuclear freeze” pact on the bargaining table: “you can’t blow me up without me blowing you up.”

Also consider players within the US intelligence community. Both the CIA and NSA have been spying on officials in Washington and other prominent Americans for a long time. These agencies hold secrets as well.

And then there is the organization whose members and alumni Trump has surrounded himself with:

Goldman Sachs. Through his key appointees from the “vampire squid” firm, Trump is working an audacious angle. He knows that if the stock market takes a long and horrendous dive, the pressure on him is going to be enormous. The “business community” will blame him. The media will claim the economy is collapsing under his watch. Goldman can make many moves to keep the stock market up. What does the firm want in return? That’s the magic question. Threats of war, and war, in order to keep contract money flowing to the military industrial complex? Special and undetectable favors? Protection from prosecution for ongoing financial crimes? And what does Goldman Sachs know about Trump? What would they be willing to reveal, if he backs away from any part of the agreement he has struck with them?

The mutually assured destruction pact has more than two sides. Holding together a multi-faceted truce isn’t the easiest job in the world.

Everyone involved has something to gain and something to lose. Calculating upside vs. downside is a delicate proposition.

And, in the midst of this, crazy people can show up who go off on the spur of the moment. They blow their corks, and all bets are off.

For now, cooler heads are prevailing.

For now.

Blackmail, extortion. It’s not the only game in town, but it’s the big one. It lurks around every corner, it sits in every conference room, it weaves its way through legislation, policy, and judicial decision.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Like this:

As I’ve been telling you for years, it’s easy to keep the public on your side if you regularly tout medical “breakthroughs” in the press. The latest innovation. The promise of a cure around the corner. The maybe-could-be discovery that will change the course of disease treatment forever.

In this case, a start-up called Tilos has one of those, for cancer. They say it’s an antibody their researchers came across while looking for a cure for MS. They stumbled on to it by accident. Aha.

Somehow, this antibody helps the immune system to recognize and wipe out cancer cells. It produces “a memory” in immune-system cells, and they are ready to go to war when cancer arrives. Or something. It’s hard to say.

The people at Tilos are, naturally, very enthusiastic.

So forthwith, I give you an assignment. Keep track of stories about this amazing antibody as time passes, and see whether it ever a) becomes a real cancer treatment, and b) does any good. Or c) disappears down the memory hole, never to be heard from again. I’m betting on c. Why? Because I’ve watched a number of these flashes dim out quickly and recede into nowhere land. And because, in this case, the company is very far from being able to fashion the antibody into a ground-level treatment. Of course, it’s possible that, on the basis of the recent gaudy announcement, Tilos could pick up some investor funding, but funding isn’t a disease treatment the last time I looked.

On the other hand, if a non-pharmaceutical company or researcher actually makes a promising discovery in cancer treatment (read about the troubles of Dr. Stan Burzynski, Dr. Willam Koch, Royal Rife, etc.), all hell breaks loose. The press immediately pounces on the researcher as if he’s working on an H-bomb in his basement. He must be an outright quack and charlatan, “because they all are.”

Corporate drug outfit=potential breakthrough.

Independent non-pharmaceutical researcher=Dr. Nazi.

Good press vs. bad press comes down to: how much can you pay; who do you know; how much advertising can you afford to buy; what official expert can you bring on board to vouch for you; is your product a drug rather than a detested natural non-patentable substance; can you do officially recognized clinical trials; are you connected with a favored group (university, research foundation, federal facility, pharma lab) who can obtain publication in a well-known medical journal.

Or are you a dreaded INDEPENDENT?

In the 1990s, I watched a federal trial in a Los Angeles courtroom. The defendant was charged with selling medical drugs without a license to practice medicine.

The defendant was prepared to argue that a) the substance he was selling was naturally produced in the body and b) it was effective.

The prosecution moved to exclude such testimony, on the grounds that it was irrelevant.

The judge agreed. Therefore, the trial was nasty, brutish, and short. The defendant was found guilty and sentenced to prison for several years.

This is how the federal bureaucracy operates. “Do you have a government-issued license to heal? No? You’re a criminal.”

I believe that if Jesus of Nazareth were walking the Earth today, in the United States, he would be arrested on the same grounds.

This would be particularly so if he were curing cancer.

Imagine this extreme case: in a stadium packed with 50,000 people who have been diagnosed with cancer, Jesus of Nazareth waves his hand and cures all of them in a few seconds.

Now he is threatening the profits of many companies, to say nothing of the power of the government, which backs the chemo-radiation-surgery monopoly to the hilt.

So he is arrested. He is put on trial. He opts to defend himself without an attorney. He tells the court that curing cancer is no crime.

The prosecuting attorney objects. “Your Honor,” he says, “whether or not this man has cured cancer is beside the point. He has no license to practice medicine. That is why we are here today. We are simply establishing that a) he was practicing medicine and b) he has no government-issued license. That is the scope of this proceeding.”

The judge agrees. The verdict is issued. Guilty.

Of course, on another front, the major media, who depend for their existence on pharmaceutical advertising, take the ball and run with it. The networks and major newspapers seek out “experts,” who emphatically state that what Jesus of Nazareth “performed” in the stadium was mere hypnotism. It was all a placebo effect. Whatever sudden “remissions” may have occurred are just temporary. Tragically, the cancers will return.

Not only that, these 50,000 people have effectively been sidetracked and diverted from seeking “real care from real doctors.” With chemo, with radiation, with surgery, they would have stood a chance of surviving and living long normal lives.

Other media pundits send up this flag: “Many of those present in the stadium were bitter clingers to their religion. They refuse to accept science. They are living in the past. They favor superstition over real medical care. In fact, they are threatening the whole basis of healthcare, since other confused and deluded Americans may now turn away from doctors and seek snake-oil salesmen and preachers for healing.”

From the highest perches of political power in this country, the word quietly goes out to the media: don’t follow up on those people who were in the stadium; don’t try to track them; don’t compile statistics on their survival rates; move on to other stories (distractions); let this whole madness die down.

But among the citizenry, an awareness spreads: the government is controlling healing through its issuance of licenses. That’s how the government is essentially protecting one form of “healing” and enabling it to become an all-encompassing cartel.

What would be the alternative or the adjunct to licenses?

Contracts.

Contracts are agreements entered into by consenting adults, who assume responsibility for the outcomes. In the case of healing, a contract would specify that people have a right to be wrong.

Let’s say two consenting adults, Jim and Frank, agree to allow Frank to treat Jim for his arthritis with water from a well on Frank’s land.

The two men acknowledge that no liability will be attached to the outcome. In other words, whether Jim get better or gets worse, no one is going file a suit. No one is going to go to the government for redress of wrongs.

The well water may be wonderful or it may be completely useless. Both men understand and acknowledge that. But they assert a right to try the treatment, because they are free.

Immediately people say, “This is ridiculous. Water can’t cure arthritis. Frank is cheating Jim. Jim is a victim. He needs to see a doctor. He needs to go on arthritis drugs.”

No, Jim doesn’t have to do anything. He is free.

To put it another way, Jim has the right to be right or wrong. It’s his decision, which is beyond the scope of any authority.

If government tries to remove that right from all of us, it is essentially saying it knows what is correct, it knows what is true, it knows what we need and require, and it’s going to give it to us even if it has to shove it down our throats. Does that sound like freedom to you?

If Jesus of Nazareth lived in the United States today, and if he went around curing cancer, he would be arrested. He wouldn’t be charged with blasphemy or treason. He would be charged with something much simpler and more mundane: practicing medicine without a license.

And he would be convicted and sentenced.

Because then and now, the government, in its throne of corruption, wants to protect its proprietary and illegal interests.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

NEWSMAN #1: Bigger. How do we play this? The Democrats wanted Comey’s head for what he did to Hillary. Trump just fired Comey. I’m confused.

NEWSMAN #2: Doesn’t matter. Say Trump just burned up the Constitution. Say he hates dogs and little children. Say his hair is actually a wig made of Russian sable.

NEWSMAN #1: What about the truth?

NEWSMAN #2: The what? You poor sap. Truth is relative to agenda. Did you miss that lesson in journalism school?

NEWSMAN #1: I didn’t go to journalism school. I got my PhD in philosophy at Yale. I wrote my thesis on a comparison of “an” and “the” in ancient Babylonia.

Fired FBI Director Comey is obviously in trouble. Cry for him. He’ll have to go on food stamps and welfare now, won’t he? Will he be able to collect Social Security? He’s too young! He needs crowdfunding. Send canned food.

The media are portraying Trump firing Comey as “breathtaking,” “stunning,” “shocking.” They’re saying this is how Washington is reacting.

If you live in Washington, try to find somebody who is really sucking air and trying to breathe. Find somebody who is leaning against a wall because he’s stunned. Find somebody whose eyes are rolling up inside his head from the shock.

It’s all made up. It’s all hyped.

Washington politicians may be pretending shock and amazement for the cameras, but that’s about it.

And if you travel outside Washington, most people don’t care about Comey. People are fired from their jobs all the time. People are let go for many reasons. People who can’t afford to be unemployed. Comey, on the other hand, is thinking about a book deal. He might be planning a vacation. He might be talking to Obama about doing some elite “community organizing.” He’ll be fielding offers to sit on corporate boards. His biggest worry: “Do I go on the talk shows right away or do I wait?”

Washington insiders aren’t shocked by anything. They just play that role on television.

When an interesting event occurs, like Trump firing Comey, Washington pols meet with their staffs and plan their public response. They look for a personal advantage. “How can I play this?” “Can I use this to get ahead?” “Let’s go for the Trump impeachment angle.”

Comey himself knew he was on the verge of getting fired. There wasn’t any mystery about it. He kept pushing the fantastical Trump-Russia investigation. He didn’t bother looking into Trump-team leaks that were the result of domestic hacking. His initial reaction to getting fired—he thought it was a joke, a prank—was nonsensical. He knew. He knew he was on the edge.

Right now, Comey is wondering how far he can move from his former job and maintain credibility as a non-partisan figure. Or: can he go the other way and sign on with Obama? Can he approach Hillary and mend fences? Can he lobby? How can he successfully position himself for the “next chapter of his life?”

I once interviewed a troubled Washington politician who had jumped the wrong way on an important decision involving his Party. He was toast. With me, he mouthed all sorts of gumble-jumble about “sticking to his guns,” but I could see his wheels were turning. He was contemplating his future. Where could he go? What could he do to make hay after public office? These people don’t waste time. They move on. Nobody cares. It’s politics.

Comey rolled the dice and lost. He knew he could lose. As he was rolling those dice, he was already thinking about his image and whether he could emerge as a hero or a martyr. Or whether he had already played out all his political capital. If so, his next gig would land him in the private sector, or with a prestigious foundation.

Washington is a mix of musical chairs and checkers. Doors open, doors close, the players scramble for a spot.

Nobody is shocked.

In the swamp, nobody is amazed.

The media pretend shock, awe, and amazement, because when they do, their ratings go up.

Right now, in that vein, they’re all jockeying for a chance to interview Comey. He’s the next big “get.”

“Tell Mr. Comey we can do this anywhere he wants to. In his living room, his study, or we’ll put him in a quiet studio. And we’ll walk along a riverbank, stroll through a forest. It’ll be dignified. Absolutely no gossip. He’s a major figure. We’ll accord him all the respect he deserves. We’ll track his career from the early days. He’s a…statesman. We hold him in the highest regard. We’d like to do this long-form, as a two-parter, on consecutive nights. An hour each night. Only one commercial per half-hour. We want to give him the widest possible exposure. All of America wants to hear what he has to say at this crucial moment. As a token of our appreciation and an expression of concern, we’re prepared to FedEx him a dozen cans of baked beans and several flank steaks from Safeway, because we know he’s currently unemployed…”

And then there was the Comey farewell letter to his FBI people.

As you read it, try to hold back the tears.

“I have said to you before that, in times of turbulence, the American people should see the FBI as a rock of competence, honesty, and independence. What makes leaving the FBI hard is the nature and quality of its people, who together make it that rock for America.”

“It is very hard to leave a group of people who are committed only to doing the right thing. My hope is that you will continue to live our values and the mission of protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution. If you do that, you too will be sad when you leave, and the American people will be safer.”

Competence? Committed to doing the right thing? Upholding the Constitution and the law?

Comey was obviously excluding himself from that reference.

Recall his surreal press conference during the presidential campaign, during which he acted as FBI director, Attorney General, and grand jury, when he recited a list of felonies Hillary Clinton had committed in the handling of her private email server…and then said he was not recommending prosecution, because Hillary showed no intent to deceive or do harm. Comey obviously knew intent was no part of the law, which was written to make sure negligence alone, in the handling of classified materials, was sufficient to prosecute and convict a perpetrator.

A number of FBI agents weren’t happy with Comey then. Not at all. The new Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe belatedly confirmed it in testimony before Congress on Thursday: “…there were folks within our agency that were frustrated with the outcome of the Hillary Clinton case and some of those folks were very vocal about those concerns.”

You bet.

As for the unparalleled honesty of the FBI Comey referred to in his farewell letter, where does one begin?

Let’s take a peek at just one area: the vaunted FBI lab, where evidence in crime investigations is analyzed.

April 20, 2015, The Atlantic: “…the Washington Post made clear Saturday in an article that begins with a punch to the gut… ‘Nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000,’ the newspaper reported, adding that ‘the cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death’.”

August 12, 2014, New Scientist: “…the initial results were released of an ongoing review of thousands of criminal cases in which FBI scientists’ testimony may have led to wrongful convictions – including for some people now on death row…’we teach these people [lab techs in training] for two weeks, and they would go back to their laboratories with a certificate of completion and be told: “Great you’re qualified to do this [analysis of evidence] – here’s your caseload”’.”

Buckle up for this one. March 22, 1997, CNN: “The Justice Department inspector general’s office has determined that the FBI crime laboratory working on the Oklahoma City bombing case made ‘scientifically unsound’ conclusions that were ‘biased in favor of the prosecution,’ The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday.”

“…[FBI] supervisors approved lab reports that they ‘cannot support’ and…FBI lab officials may have erred about the size of the blast, the amount of explosives involved and the type of explosives used in the bombing[!].”

“…harshest criticism was of David Williams, a supervisory agent in the explosives unit, the paper [LA Times] said. Those flaws reportedly include the basis of his determination that the main charge of the explosion was ammonium nitrate. The inspector general called such a determination ‘inappropriate,’ the Times said.”

“…FBI officials found a receipt for ammonium nitrate at defendant [Terry] Nichols’ home and, because of that discovery, Williams slanted his conclusion to match the evidence.”

If you’re thinking the FBI’s fake investigation of the Oklahoma bombing evidence opens the door to a whole new direction in the case, you’re right. (I wrote a book about false evidence in the OKC bombing in 1995.)

Yes, there are honest and honorable agents at the FBI, but let’s not go overboard with Comey and his sop of a farewell letter.

Comey postures. He works the “honor” angle. He tap dances. He puts out pure jive.

In 2013, before his appointment as FBI director, Comey was brought in by the scandal-ridden HSBC Bank, to oversee efforts to clean up its act—in particular, money laundering for drug cartels.

Comey was positioned as the face of honesty and competence for HSBC.

How well did he do, before he exited his position? How much crime and how many criminals did he leave behind?

Three years later, after Comey had departed, The NY Times wrote: “HSBC Bank Executives Face Charges in $3.5 Billion Currency [Fraud] Case … Traders Use Front-Running to Profit From Client Orders…”

I guess Comey didn’t clean up the HSBC mess. There were a few things he didn’t notice while he was there. A few thing he left behind. A few billion things.

And now, far more interesting than “why was Comey really fired from the FBI”: what corruption he did he leave behind at the FBI that we don’t know about?

The old saying, fake it ‘til you make it, applies. Comey faked it until he made it. And then he faked it again.

Now he’ll move into a new role. Who knows, some day, as history is rewritten, people may be saying he was the only honest man in Washington.

FUTURE NEWSMAN #1: I’m writing a book about Comey, comparing him to Gandhi.

FUTURE NEWSMAN #2: Who wins?

FUTURE NEWSMAN #1: Comey, in a landslide. He stood up against the titanic forces of evil in Washington.

FUTURE NEWSMAN #2: You have a publisher?

FUTURE NEWSMAN #1: The US Printing Office. My uncle owns it.

FUTURE NEWSMAN #2: I thought that was a government department.

FUTURE NEWSMAN #1: The New York Times bought it.

FUTURE NEWSMAN #2: Your uncle owns the New York Times?

FUTURE NEWSMAN #1: He owns the company that owns Facebook and Google. They own the New York Times.

FUTURE NEWSMAN #2: Wow. What’s the name of the company your uncle owns?

FUTURE NEWSMAN #1: Clinton and Comey. It’s a law firm and a foundation. Their headquarters are in Jerusalem, Riyadh, and the Vatican.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

In the political swamp that is Washington, and in the press swamp, motor boats began speeding every which way in the wake of Trump’s decision to fire FBI Director Comey.

People in the boats are holding up signs to explain the reason for the firing.

The first sign was: COMEY LIED. Comey lied the other day. He lied in testimony before Congress, when he said Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s long-time aide, had sent “hundreds and thousands” of emails to her husband, Anthony Weiner, some of which contained classified information. The truth was, the FBI says, contradicting Comey, a great many of those emails were merely “backed up” on Weiner’s laptop via “backup devices.” Huh? Does that actually mean something? Weiner obtained those emails out of the sky, delivered by a chariot, and not from Huma? Weiner’s laptop was serving as a storage device, a personal little cloud? Somebody not connected to the Hillary campaign was using the social-media’s porn star as a backup for classified data? Who would that be? Putin? Putin hacked the Hillary/DNC emails, and sent them to both WikiLeaks and Anthony Weiner? “Hi Anthony. Vlad here. Keep these thousands of emails for posterity.”

The next motor boat running through the swamp featured a sign that said: COMEY SCREWED UP THE HILLARY INVESTIGATION. This sign can be interpreted several ways, depending on who is in the boat. One, Comey didn’t press the investigation into Hillary’s personal email server far enough last summer and fall. He stalled it. He didn’t ask for an indictment. That’s why Trump fired him yesterday. Trump didn’t fire Comey right after he was elected president, when it would have been a simple bye bye. No, Trump waited five months and then lowered the boom. Sure.

The other meaning of COMEY SCREWED UP THE HILLARY INVESTIGATION is: Comey improperly told the world (last summer) that the FBI was investigating Hillary. His announcement influenced the election. The FBI is supposed to keep absolutely quiet about ongoing investigations. Comey didn’t. Then he publicly closed the book on the investigation, opened it again, and closed it again. That’s why Trump just fired him. Again, Trump waited five months after the election and then got rid of Comey. And of course, Trump was morally outraged that Comey exposed Hillary in the first place, when Comey should have remained silent. Sure. That makes a lot of sense.

The next motor boat speeding across the swamp held up a big sign that said, TRUMP FIRED COMEY TO STOP THE FBI FROM INVESTIGATING THE TRUMP-RUSSIA CONNECTION. You see, for five months, Trump happily left Comey in place, knowing Comey was investigating him, Trump, and yesterday Trump had enough of that, so he fired the FBI director. Right.

The next motor boat in the swamp held up a sign that said, THIS IS NIXON ALL OVER AGAIN, THIS IS TRUMP’S WATERGATE. The sign refers to the last sign, but ups the ante. And there is another sign that says, in the same vein, NOW WE CAN IMPEACH TRUMP. And another one that says, APPOINT AN INDEPENDENT COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE THE TRUMP-RUSSIA CONNECTION.

I’m waiting for Bob Woodward of Watergate fame to step in and say, “It’s all right, folks, I’m on the case. I’ll handle it. I was just eating lunch and sipping a fine wine in my underground parking garage when a shadowy figure stepped out of the gloom and whispered, ‘My throat is deep, and I’ll spoon-feed you secrets for the next year, but you’ll have to dig up the facts. Everybody is involved in the cover-up. Comey, Sessions, Pence, Bannon, Conway, Ivanka, Putin, Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Stalin.”

So why did Trump fire Comey yesterday?

I don’t know, but the short answer might be: Comey’s boss, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, told Trump to get rid of Comey. Sessions made the call.

Sessions now has a specific plan to make the FBI over in the image he prefers. Sessions wants to shape the Bureau according to his agendas. Sessions has looked into the Bureau and he now knows which people he wants to fire. He wants to get rid of the Obama crowd. He wants loyalists. He doesn’t want a Dept. of Justice that is going in one direction, while the FBI is going in another. Sessions wants a predictable FBI. His own.

“But why fire Comey now? The answer is simple. The day before, President Barack Obama’s former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper repeated, under oath, what he told NBC News’ Chuck Todd on Meet the Press on March 5 — that he had seen no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. That gave the Trump administration the breathing room to dismiss Comey — which it simply did not have before.”

In other words, now Trump can’t be accused of firing Comey to stop “the truth” emerging about a Trump-Russia collusion, because there isn’t any collusion.

Theoretically, that might be the case—but the spin machine doesn’t care about the truth or who is right and who is wrong. The machine keeps running. Those motor boats keep moving across the swamp. Signs come out. People yell and scream.

Chuck Schumer may soon compare Trump to Benedict Arnold.

For the past 65 years, the CIA has been infiltrating media and promoting many messages. In certain cases, an op involves promoting CONFLICTING messages, because the intent is sowing discord, chaos, and division. In this instance (Comey/Trump), it’s a walk in the park (or a ride in the swamp). All sorts of people on both sides already have steam coming out of their ears, without any nudging or provocation.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

(A note to my readers. My site, NoMoreFakeNews.com, is still down. We’ve pinpointed the problem, and we’re working to fix it. My blog, where I publish all my articles, is fine. And so is my email list. Feel free to sign up. Thanks for your patience and continued support. My work, as always, continues.)

Welcome to the circus, boys and girls. Parades, animals, acrobats, clowns, all colluding to approve lethal drugs for public use! Watch people take the drugs and fall down, watch them carted off in colorful cars to hospitals, where the doctors will have no idea what’s causing the life-threatening injuries! It’s wild, it’s crazy, and it’s brought to you by drug companies and their enablers at the FDA! It’s all covered by insurance. We’ve got cotton candy, popcorn, ice cream for the kiddies, and everybody can get in under the big tent! It’s the biggest game and the biggest hustle in town!

Recently, I wrote about the 18,000 lawsuits against Xarelto. Here is a quick recap:

The first court test of Bayer/J&J’s billion-dollar bonanza, blood-thinner, Xarelto, is coming up in New Orleans next week. The outcome will influence how the 18,000 lawsuits behind it will be handled.

The plaintiff in the first suit is Joseph Boudreaux. “While Xarelto was supposed to help cut his stroke risk, Boudreaux says it instead caused internal bleeding that required a week-long hospital stay in the intensive-care unit, several blood transfusions and multiple heart procedures. ‘I don’t want anybody else to suffer like I have from that drug,’ the part-time security guard says,” reports the Chicago Tribune.

Lawyers for Bayer and J&J will argue, in the main, that Xarelto was approved by the FDA as safe and effective.

This is the normal front-line strategy. “Well, the government says our drug is safe and effective, so what else do you want from us? We’ve done our duty. We’re off the hook.”

All right, that’s my recap.

BUT suppose the drugmaker and the government (FDA) both cheated and lied and committed multiple crimes, during the clinical trials of the drug leading up to its approval for public use?

It turns out someone has been investigating those clinical trials of Xarelto, and he has uncovered stunning secrets. His name is Charles Seife. He is a professor of journalism at New York University.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the 18,000 lawsuits against Xaraelto, take notice. This is information you want to have at your fingertips. Seife can provide many details—here I’m just presenting his overview.

“The problems were so bad and so widespread that, contrary to its usual practice, the FDA declared the entire RECORD study to be ‘unreliable.’ Yet if you look in the medical journals, the results from RECORD 4 sit quietly in The Lancet without any hint in the literature about falsification, misconduct, or chaos behind the scenes. This means that physicians around the world are basing life-and-death medical decisions on a study that the FDA knows is simply not credible.”

Seife is pointing out that the FDA never alerted The Lancet that the published report on the Xarelto clinical trials was false through and through.

Seife continues: “RECORD 2, for example, was nearly as awful as RECORD 4: Four out of 10 sites that the FDA inspected showed evidence of misconduct, or other issues grave enough to render the site’s data worthless—including clear evidence of data falsification at one site. In aggregate, these problems raise serious doubts about the quality of all four key rivaroxaban (Xareltio) studies—and, by extension, doubts about how seriously we should take the claim that rivaroxaban is safe and effective. The FDA is keeping mum, even as wrongful-death lawsuits begin to multiply.”

“The sworn purpose of the FDA is to protect the public health, to assure us that all the drugs on the market are proven safe and effective by reputable scientific trials. Yet, over and over again, the agency has proven itself willing to keep scientists, doctors, and the public in the dark about incidents when those scientific trials turn out to be less than reputable. It does so not only by passive silence, but by active deception.”

Basically, Seife is stating that the FDA found horrendous distortions in the clinical trials of Xarelto—and yet the agency approved the drug, as safe and effective, for public use.

—And then people taking the drug began to experience dire “adverse effects,” like uncontrolled bleeding.

And now we have 18,000 lawsuits against Xarelto’s parents, Bayer and J&J.

What about lawsuits against the FDA? That’s a tougher hill to climb for lawyers. Because the FDA is “the government.”

I’ve written many articles about the criminal agency called the FDA (article archive here). For stark revealing light, consider an interview relentless medical reporter, Martha Rosenberg, conducted with an FDA employee, whose job was reviewing new drugs and offering an assessment of their safety and efficacy, prior to agency approval or rejection.

Here is what I wrote in one piece:

In a stunning interview with Truthout’s Martha Rosenberg, former FDA drug reviewer, Ronald Kavanagh, exposes the FDA as a relentless criminal mafia protecting its client, Big Pharma, with a host of mob strategies.

“One [FDA] manager threatened my children…I was afraid that I could be killed for talking to Congress and criminal investigators.”

Kavanagh reviewed new drug applications made to the FDA by pharmaceutical companies. He was one of the holdouts at the Agency who insisted that the drugs had to be safe and effective before being released to the public.

But honest appraisal wasn’t part of the FDA culture, and Kavanagh swam against the tide, until he realized his life and the life of his children was on the line.

That’s what I wrote, and considering what has happened in the case of Xarelto, Kavanagh’s statements take on very specific meaning:

The FDA colludes with a drug manufacturer to hide the dangers of a new drug that should never have been approved.

The drug is approved.

The drug assaults people and causes grievous harm.

Based on this article, and many others I’ve written exposing the FDA, I would say the agency is in charge of internal and domestic chemical warfare against the American people.

There. Is that clear enough?

Update—the first lawsuit against Xarelto, in New Orleans, has just been decided by a jury. They have ruled in favor of the drug companies, Bayer and J&J, and against the plaintiff, Joseph Boudreaux.

The major (narrow) issue in the case seems to have come down to this: did the drug companies failed to warn physicians about bleeding risks associated with Xarento?

The jury said Bayer and J&J DIDN’T FAIL TO WARN.

End of story.

The madness continues.

This is what happens when plaintiffs’ lawyers are too dim to see the big picture I presented in this article—or when a presiding judge keeps denying the right to introduce relevant evidence against a drug.

What about the 18,000 Xarelto lawsuits against Bayer and J&J that are waiting in the wings? Right now, the plaintiffs’ lawyers are scrambling to re-think their strategies.

It’s possible that, eventually, all 18,000 cases will be settled, not tried in court. If that happens, the people who have been damaged by Xarelto could each receive a minimal payout for their suffering.

NOTE TO PLAINTIFFS’ LAWYERS: Reveal, in court, the criminal collusion between the FDA and Bayer and J&J. Expose the crimes they committed in order to get the highly dangerous Xarelto approved for public use in the first place—when it should have been rejected and all the stocks destroyed.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Major media aren’t giving this story the coverage it deserves. I certainly am.

Short question: Can a person sue a US vaccine manufacturer?

Short answer: Under certain conditions, yes.

Note: I’m not framing this article as professional legal advice. I’m reporting what I’ve been able to dig up on a very explosive issue so far. I’ve communicated with two lawyers and a law professor. I’ve been pointed to an important passage on a federal web page.

Right now, lawyers and their clients are suing Merck, the manufacturer, for injuries incurred from Merck’s shingles vaccine, Zostavax.

One of the plaintiffs’ attorneys told me he has already filed two cases in California. Each case has 50 plaintiffs. He states he has 5000 clients waiting in the wings. There are other attorneys with other plaintiffs.

But wait. Isn’t there a federal law that bars people from suing vaccine manufacturers?

Isn’t that law the 1986 Childhood Vaccine Injury Act? Doesn’t it demand that people go to a special federal “vaccine tribunal/court” and plead for compensation from the government?

The law shielding vaccine companies only applies to childhood vaccines.

The Merck shingles vaccine is only for adults.

The special federal “vaccine tribunal/court” is established as part of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). This is where parents who claim their children were injured by vaccines must go, to ask for compensation from the government—not from vaccine manufacturers.

But on a web page of the US Dept. of Health and Human Services, under “Health Resources and Services Administration,” we see “Frequently Asked Questions.” And we read this rather opaque statement:

“In order for a category of vaccines to be covered, the category of vaccines must be recommended for routine administration to children by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention…” [Note: On this clumsy FAQ web page, you have to click on “View Answer” under the following question to see it: “If a new vaccine product is licensed, what needs to occur before the vaccine will be covered by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP)?”]

What does “covered” mean? It means “covered exclusively by the federal compensation program.” It means a parent who believes her child has been injured by a vaccine goes to the special federal “court.” The vaccine must be FOR CHILDREN. However, an adult seeking compensation for vaccine injury, FROM AN ADULT VACCCINE, would, with a lawyer, argue his case in ordinary state or federal court. That adult would sue the vaccine manufacturer.

This message from the federal government is clear. The ban against suing vaccine manufacturers only applies to vaccines recommended for children (and pregnant women). The ban does not apply to adult vaccines.

Naturally, adults are going to be interested in seeing a list of adult vaccines, because in the case of vaccine-injury, these people can and must go to ordinary state or federal courts and sue the vaccine manufacturer. And they can sue for punitive damages. This is what scares vaccine manufacturers. Punitive-damage money can soar into the stratosphere.

However, some of the vaccines on this list are recommended for both adults and children. When a vaccine is recommended by the CDC for both adults and children, adults seeking compensation for vaccine-injury would not be permitted to argue their cases in ordinary courts and sue the manufacturer. Instead, they would have to go to the special federal vaccine “court” and try to obtain compensation from the government.

It will be very important to see what happens as these lawsuits against Merck and their shingles vaccine move forward. Many tactics will be deployed. Right now, in one suit filed in Philadelphia, Merck is arguing for a change of venue. Change of venue often signals an attempt to find a more friendly court.

We’re in the beginning stages of a struggle.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys have high hurdles to climb. Among them: causation. How do you prove a vaccine “caused” an injury? I’m not talking about truth, common sense, or even conventional medical standards. I’m talking about legal proofs, and what is admissible in court. That territory is a Twilight Zone of complexity.

Stay tuned.

Lawsuits for vaccine injury, against one of the biggest pharmaceutical companies in the world (Merck), are sprouting like weeds. Will judges find a reason to cut them off, or will they proceed to trial? Will these lawsuits inspire other attorneys and their clients to sue vaccine manufacturers for injury from other adult vaccines?

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.